45 minutes ago, ninclouse2000 said:

That’s exactly what it means. Commanders will be named characters. It wouldn’t feel like Star Wars without classic characters leading the charge. Makes me very very happy.

Double edged sword.

With the command system and what's been released for luke and vader i think it's pretty safe to rule out generic commanders (they still need at least 3 command cards, which it looks like will be themed around the character). I like the concept, but i'm a little worried about deathstar (pardon the pun) detachments. I already see the potential for it in luke +3x at rt.

Time will tell.

I am leaning more into the idea that I may not want generic commanders after all. Having played Android: Netrunner, I view the commanders sort of like the runners or corps. Playing a specific character changes the makeup of your army and the way you play the game. I think this game is really going to be differnet from games like 40k. In 40k, your strategy is decided by what faction you play as. Generic commanders make sense because they really are not that important in the grand scheme of the game. I see legion as being different in that you have two factions that from what we have seen so far are not terribly different but will play very differently because of their commanders. It is a system that pretty much goes against the very idea of a generic commander. Also, Star wars is rich with characters and heroes. I think it would be awesome to have a force led by Asohka or Cassian for the rebels and the Grand Inquisitor or Old Man Maul for the Empire.

I want to tell the story of the hero I just made up in my head rather than justify why Vader is off in the middle of nowhere fighting Luke again, pretending Vader isn't itching to tell Luke they are father and son, and make his son join him. I dunno.

I hope "Big" means I can have an AT-AT with AT-ST and armor escort. If not, I'm not interested. I'll stay in space where I can comfortably crush things with my Imperial Star Destroyers.

22 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I want to tell the story of the hero I just made up in my head rather than justify why Vader is off in the middle of nowhere fighting Luke again, pretending Vader isn't itching to tell Luke they are father and son, and make his son join him. I dunno.

I hope "Big" means I can have an AT-AT with AT-ST and armor escort. If not, I'm not interested. I'll stay in space where I can comfortably crush things with my Imperial Star Destroyers.

I get that. But the same thing exists with named heroes in other IPs. Why is Abaddon the Despoiler fighting a gang of dumb as bricks space orks? Or in Battlefront 2, why the heck is Darth Maul fighting Rey? Tabletop miniature games tend to abstract the story in favor of simulating the tactics. You are already having to suspend disbelief when your squad of rebels shoots Darth Vader to Death. What I could see is a generic captain who acts as your second commander and maybe augments the characters command cards?

1 hour ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

I am leaning more into the idea that I may not want generic commanders after all. Having played Android: Netrunner, I view the commanders sort of like the runners or corps. Playing a specific character changes the makeup of your army and the way you play the game. I think this game is really going to be differnet from games like 40k. In 40k, your strategy is decided by what faction you play as. Generic commanders make sense because they really are not that important in the grand scheme of the game. I see legion as being different in that you have two factions that from what we have seen so far are not terribly different but will play very differently because of their commanders. It is a system that pretty much goes against the very idea of a generic commander. Also, Star wars is rich with characters and heroes. I think it would be awesome to have a force led by Asohka or Cassian for the rebels and the Grand Inquisitor or Old Man Maul for the Empire.

If you think this, you're really not paying enough attention to the stats.

For the basic units that are going to be the backbone of your army Rebels =offensive while Imps= defensive, *but* the text boosts ask you to make a choice for spending actions against this theme . (Impact and dodge).... it makes for some tactical depth, i just hope down the track the importance of the dice rolls aren't as watered down by keywords as they have been with other games

But the imperials have speeder bikes which are incredibly offensive! Maybe I worded it incorrectly. It is not that they are not different, it is that the differences are nuanced. In 40k you have a shooty faction, a hitting people faction, a slow faction, a fast faction etc. Both factions in legion have units that can lay down heavy fire, both have units that can lay down the hurt up close, both have units that can zip around the battlefield messing up the enemy's day. So when I say they are not too different I mean that they both have access to a varied bag of tricks. And, yes, they do those things differently. The rebels zip around with a heavy unit while the imperials zip around with the smaller speeder bikes. The rebels lay down heavy fire with a few small walkers while the imperials lay it down with 1 huge walker but neither is tied into the predefined role of being the "horde" faction or the "glass cannon". This is actually why I like the game so much already. I don't want to have to play an army I don't like just because I want to play a certain way.

13 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

But the imperials have speeder bikes which are incredibly offensive! Maybe I worded it incorrectly. It is not that they are not different, it is that the differences are nuanced. In 40k you have a shooty faction, a hitting people faction, a slow faction, a fast faction etc. Both factions in legion have units that can lay down heavy fire, both have units that can lay down the hurt up close, both have units that can zip around the battlefield messing up the enemy's day. So when I say they are not too different I mean that they both have access to a varied bag of tricks. And, yes, they do those things differently. The rebels zip around with a heavy unit while the imperials zip around with the smaller speeder bikes. The rebels lay down heavy fire with a few small walkers while the imperials lay it down with 1 huge walker but neither is tied into the predefined role of being the "horde" faction or the "glass cannon". This is actually why I like the game so much already. I don't want to have to play an army I don't like just because I want to play a certain way.

not so much. Based on card info from gencon-

speder bikes 2 red, 2 black, 2 white impact 1 fixed front or 4 black 360 degrees cuts in half at 3 wounds

always has cover 1, has surge conversion for both hit and defense

move 3

at rt

5 black dice rotary canon, or 1 red 2 black impact 3 laser canon ( i'll get back to this in a sec) all front arc

Has armor so only crits affect it, may lose offense at 4 crits (we don't have the rules yet, only vague explanations in interviews)

has offensive critical surge no defensive surge

move 2

Now with that critical surge i expect the laser cannon will rarely see play, yes it has range but on average you are throwing 1.5 crits vs 2 with the laser cannon anyway with a 60%+ chance when not shooting armor to be doing more potential damage than the laser makes it the better weapon

Those 2 whites the speeder bike has on the other hand have the same chance of blanking out, not to mention the whole you lose half your attack dice early with wounds. The bikes do however have the advantage of the 360degree secondary vs melee.

As for defense, the atrt relies entire on armor while the speed has auto cover + the surge conversion. I wont go into % stats there because it's waaaay too dependent on what's shooting at said unit and the keywords involved, but the bikes have more tricks to ensure the damage doesn't get through same as the rest of the imp units......

Ok well I guess in general then you could say rebel units favor offense and imperial units favor defense. However they still have not (not yet at least) been put into a box strategy wise. Each faction can be played a lot of different ways especially with variable set up and objectives.

19 hours ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

I am leaning more into the idea that I may not want generic commanders after all. Having played Android: Netrunner, I view the commanders sort of like the runners or corps. Playing a specific character changes the makeup of your army and the way you play the game.

And there's no good reason why you couldn't retain that effect with a generic commander. For example, a 'naval officer' has access to cards A, B, and C; a 'stormtrooper officer' has access to cards C, D, and E.

Wargaming often attracts creative people who - after an investment of their precious time, money, and acquisition of RSI - want to feel some personal attachment to the characters they use, and this is quite often done by the invention of their own named leaders. Even historical wargamers share this bug. Take a look at the ImagiNations phenomenon among those who play 18th century-style wargames.

The game looks very promising, and the mechanics are quite intriguing. Even someone like me who isn't that much of a Star Wars fan can appreciate the excellent aesthetics of the original trilogy, but I personally have no interest at all in the further adventures of Luke Skywalker and co .

11 minutes ago, srMontresor said:

And there's no good reason why you couldn't retain that effect with a generic commander. For example, a 'naval officer' has access to cards A, B, and C; a 'stormtrooper officer' has access to cards C, D, and E.

Wargaming often attracts creative people who - after an investment of their precious time, money, and acquisition of RSI - want to feel some personal attachment to the characters they use, and this is quite often done by the invention of their own named leaders. Even historical wargamers share this bug. Take a look at the ImagiNations phenomenon among those who play 18th century-style wargames.

The game looks very promising, and the mechanics are quite intriguing. Even someone like me who isn't that much of a Star Wars fan can appreciate the excellent aesthetics of the original trilogy, but I personally have no interest at all in the further adventures of Luke Skywalker and co .

Perhaps the game isn’t for you then and that’s ok.

6 minutes ago, ninclouse2000 said:

Perhaps the game isn’t for you then and that’s ok.

I suspect that will be so, yeah.

In almost every battle in any book, comic, TV show or movie the main character is deeply involved with the action.

In Armada the admiral assigned to the fleet has specific abilities that encourage lists down a variety of paths. So even with the two factions you end up with several list archetypes for each side.

As such both with the strength of game play this encourages and the thematic approach it gives the battles I would rather that we don't get generic leaders. However, I hope that the leaders don't have abilities that just make them far too powerful, that they will be hurt badly if misplayed just as much as they will cause grief if played well. If the leaders fail to deliver on improved theme, strategies and tactics them I am all for softening down into generic leaders.